The High Court · 2025

.APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS T. Kamala, W/o. late Narsimha Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ: House wife T. Paftabhi Rama Rao, S/o. late Narsimha Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Private Employee T. Laxminarayana, S/o. late Narsimha Rao Age about 49 years, Occ: Private Employee All are R/o. ! No. !4, Street No. 3, Venkatadri Township, Phase-|, Narapallly, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Anjali Munde, Wo. Sanjay Munder Aged about 33 years, Occ: House wife C/o. Neelakanteshwar, Budheshiya Seva Bharathi Sanstgam Suyog Colony, Parbhani Town and District Maharastra

5. T. Padmavathi (died), Ranga Reddy ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS i4ffi=7 ,jti - ,r' oF 2024 Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act praying thrrt in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 676 days in preferring this Second Appeal. IAN :2OF 2 24 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant Stay of Operation on judgment and decree dated 10-03-2022, passed by the Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to the extent of Schedule C-2 property. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI L. HARISH Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mrs. KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY IA.No.1 of 2024 In/and SECOND APPEAL No.236 of 2024 COMMON ORDER This application is trled seeking to condone the delay of 676 days in filing the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 10.03.2022, passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in AS.No.l37 of 2018.

2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. [n the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners averred that pursuant to the preliminary decree dated

28.06.2017 passed in OS.No.929 of 2007, they are entitled to ll4th share in the suit A, B, Cl,, C2 and D schedule properties; that they filed IA.No.4 of 2018 for passing final decree and simultaneously, they filed IA.No.5 of 2018 for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner, which was allowed and the Advocate- Commissioner visited the suit schedule properties after intimating the date and time of inspection to both the pafties, but the respondents/defendants clid not choose to turn up; and at that juncture, the respondents filed AS.No.l37 of 20[8 on the file of \ 2 LNA, J IA.No.l of 2024 in 5.A.No.236 of 2024 XIII Additional Disrrict Judge, Ranga Reddy Disrrict at L.B.Nagar and the said court granted interim stay till the di:iposal of tlre said appeal; that ultimately, the said Appeal was partll. allowed onlv to the extent of c2 schedule property. Aggrieved kry the same, the petitione's preferred the present Appeal along w.ith an application for condonation of delay of 676 days in filing the z\.ppear.

4. The reasons put forth by petitioner No.l fbr the delav that occurred in filing the appeal are that she went to LJSA to visit her daughter and thereafter, she was busy in perforrni,g the maniage of her daughter and later, she suffered from ill-heaith and as such, she could not contact the counsel and give inst_r.uctions to file Second Appeal in time and hence, prayed the courl to condone tlie delay in filing the Second Appeal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia denying the reasons put forth by petitioner No.l for the delay in filirrg the Seco'd Appeal and fufther, submitted that in fact, the marriage of petitioner No.l's daughter was performed on 2g. 11.2021, i.e., prior to date of passing of judgrnent in AS.No.r37 of 20rg on 10.03.2022; that after passing of the said judgrnent, the petitioners I I I ! I 'I i '. 1 i 1J LNA, J IA.No.t of 2024 in 5.A.No.236 of 2024 have also paid Advocate-Comrnissioner's fee of Rs.15,000/- in the month of January, 2024 and are actively participating in the final clecree proceedings and in such a case, the case o1'petitionel No.1 that as she was suffering with itl-health, she could not contact the counsel and instruct him to file Second Appeal in time and hence, the delay occurred cannot be believed and accordingly, averred that ttre application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.l is a widow and she was looking after the welf'are of the family and and also pursuing AS.No.l37 of 2018 before the tirst Appeltate Court, however, as she was busy in perfonning the marriage of her daughter and later suffered with itl-health, she was unable to give instructions to the counsel in time to file Second Appeal and for the aforesaid reasons, the delay occurred in filing the Second Appeal which is neither willful nor wanton on the part of the petitioners and hence, prayed to condone the delay.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that though petitioner No.1 claimed that she suffered with ill-health and she visited her daughter's place at USA, she failed to produce any 4 LNA, J IA.No.I of 2024 irr 5.A.No.236 of 202a material in proof of the same. He further submitted that even the marriage of petitioner No.l 's daughter was pe rformed prior tcl passing of.iudgment in AS.No.137 of 2018, whic,:r is under appeal in the present Appeal, and therefore, the reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 in the application are false and bas;eless and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

8. This court perused the entire material available on record. The avennent of the respondents in the counter thar. the marriage o{. petitioner No. I 's daughter was performed on 2g. r I .2021 i.e., prior to passing of the irnpugned judgment was not denied by plaintiff No.l. Further, petitioner No.l has not produced any rnedical certificate or records to substantiate her stand that stre suffered with ill-health. That apart, petitioner No.l herself adrnitted that final decree proceedings are being pursued by her counsel. petitioner No.1 also did not produce any material with regard to her travel to usA to visit her daughter. In the light of the aforesaid facts, rhe reasons put fomh by petitioner No.l for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal cannot be believed and it appears that she approached this court with unclean hands and failerl to place any { w { I i , * I ! \ ! To, 5 LNA, J IA.No.l of 2024 in 5.A.No.236 of 2024 material in support of her contention. Hence, she is not entitled to indulgence of this Court

9. For the tbregoing reasons, the application is devoid of any rnerits and is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordin_qly, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. 1 1. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs. SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Court of the Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The Court of the lll Additional Senior Civil Judge FTC Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar,HYderabad

3. The Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge FAC lll Additional Senior Civil Judge FTC Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad

4. One CC to SRl. L HARISH , Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate IoPUC] 6. One CC to MRS.KALPANA EKBOTE, Advocate [OPUC] % Two CD Copies .,, r' f HIGH COURT DATED: 01 t0512025 1' ii: S 1 'l 'ic'i ?iifi \ 1s ,.at )(, '. *. JUDGMENT lA NO.1 0F 2024 |N/AND SA.No.236 of 2024 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL